How Would You Divide Up Russia to give territory to U.S. allies in the aftermath of a war

This sounds more like the scenario for a video or board game rather than a topic in Political Opinions & Beliefs.

 

Harris is reviled by her own party....What is fictional about it?

 

Well the idea of successfully prosecuting World War III and then dividing up Russia. That's totally fictional. And just because Harris is reviled doesn't mean they won't support her.

 

defeated nations have been divided up before

 

Wow.

 

Germany and Austria to name just a couple after World War Two

 

There wouldn't be anyone left to give the land to. What exactly do you think the Russians will do when Western tanks are rolling into Moscow? What would the Americans do if Russian tanks were rolling into D.C.? What would the Israelis do if Iranian tanks were rolling into Jerusalem? The same thing the Russians would do - push the button.

We can talk all day and night about the war as it is, with a mainly financing role from the US - but an all out conquering war against Russia is pure madness and anyone with half a brain cell knows it. Not even Cheney or Rumsfeld would have been stupid enough to propose such an action.

 

Even ICBMs and SLBMs can be intercepted or preempted

 

https://www.icanw.org/how_destructive_are_today_s_nuclear_weapons

 

And we have had failed missile tests too. But granted, Russia's logistics problems are a complete disaster as evident in the first months of the war. But those missiles are not as accurate as ours. Their warheads are much largert than what we have and we focus more on aiming where we can get a missile to land within 900 yards of the intended target. Russia is still about 2 to 3 miles in accuracy. But they can launch. Computers do most of the legwork and humans just need to input the pre-designated destination into the computer.

 

An anti nuclear website is not a credible source

 

I mean technically yeah, mainly in the launch phase. There is some research into destroying them on reentry, but this is extremely difficult because they are travelling so fast. In any sort of actual nuclear war this is not feasible, you might stop some small percentage but not enough to prevent most major cities being hit multiple times. This is why the consensus is still that there is no real, practical defence against MIRV ICBMs and SLBMs, at least not today.

Indeed it may cause significant issues if defence against them becomes practical, because it means a nuclear war might be winnable for one side and thereby incentivize an attack.

 

It is a credible source when it comes to the science of a nuclear device.

But here is another link below. Read the part about nuclear fallout. That is where the problem really lies. It is why no nuclear devices have been detonated in an act of war since 1945.

https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/devastating-effects-of-nuclear-weapons-war/

 

The risks of fall out are vastly overstated. Attacks on cities would involve airbursts that create very little fallout.'

You need to study the subject objectively instead of thinking that a nuclear conflict would be a remake of the movie "On the Beach".

 

It may be "winnable" but the stakes and risks are far higher than a conventional war. We may think Russian missiles are decrepit, and if they're not we can effectively counter them, but if we're wrong, millions of innocent people die. Missiles are designed to get through defenses, and only a small proportion have to get through to be catastrophic. I don't think it's "extinction of mankind" catastrophic, but killing a large proportion of the population is bad enough.

 

Pretty sure the U.S would suffer less than 20 million killed, And even if the U.S suffered 100 million deaths, our population would still equal what it was the year I was born.

 

That's a lot of lives. And for what?

 

Your going to have to give me a pretty good reason to accept 20 million American casualties.

 

Well that is BS. Fallout is what happened in Nagasaki and Hiroshima in a low-yield device. We don;t have those in our arsenal, and neither do the Russians, the Chinese, the Brits, the French, the Israelis, the Pakistanis, and the Indians, aka the Republic of India. There is enough nuclear weapons and missiles to destroy this world several times over. And even the military brass from all the countries, including our adversaries agree with this assessment.

 

Your point is not without merit. Obviously, we're pretty much all better off when hundreds of thousands of us on this side are not in a shooting war with hundreds of thousands of them on that other side. However, there are exceptions to that, WWII probably being the single strongest thing. Millions of people died, even if you only count Allied Soldiers/Sailors/Marines, straight up targeting civilians by the millions at the various deathcamps as well as just the ones who died in various air raids against civilians in the UK, France, and elsewhere.

Despite that carnage, facts remain that the world is in a better place now than it would have been had the US abjectly refused to get involved, and let the chips fall where they may. Some hypothetical future wars/battles/etc. might prove to have the same good long-term effect.

 

Prove it. Even the largest U.S nuclear weapon can be "dialed down" to a mere .3 kilotons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B61_nuclear_bomb

 

It's easy to see Hitler in the rear view mirror.

Neither Putin, nor Zelenskyy has the distinctive mustache, but neither is a saint. Are you really so certain which villain you want to back?